Owaisi backs SC view on Vande Mataram, criticises SG’s ‘Naxalite’ remark

Hyderabad: AIMIM president and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi welcomed the Supreme Court’s observation that a person who declines to sing Vande Mataram on grounds of conscience or religion should not face criminal action.

Reacting to the hearing in a post on X, Owaisi said the right to disagree was integral to freedom of thought, speech and expression. He also criticised Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for referring to “Naxalites” during arguments on the challenge to the law.

“The freedom to disagree is an essential part of the liberty of thought, speech and expression. And yet, the Solicitor General of India — the country’s second-highest law officer — chose to call people ‘Naxalites’ for merely exercising their right to approach the courts and challenge the validity of a law,” Owaisi said.

The remarks came after the Supreme Court heard a petition by Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna challenging provisions that require the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at public gatherings and provide penal protection to the national song. Krishna has argued that the last four stanzas contain references to Hindu deities and that compulsory recitation would be inconsistent with India’s secular character.

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana asked the Centre to respond to the petition. During the hearing, the court referred to the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel ruling and indicated that a conscientious objector who does not recite one or all stanzas should not suffer criminal consequences.

The 1986 verdict protected Jehovah’s Witness schoolchildren from punitive action after they respectfully stood during the national anthem but did not sing it because of their religious beliefs.

The Bench, however, said the decision on what should constitute the national song lay with the democratically elected government. It indicated that it would not reassess the national sentiment or aspiration associated with Vande Mataram.

The court is expected to examine the narrower constitutional question of whether a person who refuses to sing one or more stanzas because of genuine religious or conscientious objections can be subjected to penal provisions.